5 ms·

Norway had a great response to their terror attack in 2011. The country would "stand firm in defending our values" and the "open, tolerant and inclusi

Norway had a great response to their terror attack in 2011. The country would "stand firm in defending our values" and the "open, tolerant and inclusive society", he said. "The Norwegian response to violence is more democracy, more openness and greater political participation." -- Jens Stoltenberg, Norwegian Prime Minister [at the time] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/27/norway-terror-attacks-prime-minister http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/27/norway-terror-a...

PythonicAlpha 12y ago
That is the only valid response to such an attack. With different responses, the terrorists win.
- mc32 12y ago
  I hear people use this phrase quite a lot. (people on the right and left) but I disagree with those who say that terrorists --people who commit any kind of terror are out to 'win' anything. Typically terrorists just want to terrorize, not win, particularly. For example, you might have an insurgent group somewhere or other, let's say Caucasus, those movements will have real boots on the ground doing fighting to win 'ground' and they will also have a terrorist operations. The terror operations are not there to win anything --just to instill terror. They are there for nothing else than instill terror. Not shut down buildings, not keep people from going to work or going to market --afterall people will _have_ to continue going to market. That's what I think. In sports this would be like doing something to get a penalty. Doing something to injure an opponent will not get you the victory. Only points (goals, whatever) will provide the win. A boxer does not win by biting off the opponent's ear, they win by earning more points.
  - brazzy 12y ago
    Terrorists do absolutely NOT "just want to terrorize". They have goals. If they achieve their goals through the acts of terror, directly or indirectly, they win.
    - mc32 12y ago
      Has there been a movement which has won in substance through terrorism? Movements don't win through terrorism. The movements (or however you want to characterize it) have to actually come out and put up a fight if they want to win. Terrorism tends to have the opposite effect --it alienates people from a cause they might actually see some commonality with. Using the boxing analogy, someone is fighting Muhammad Ali, Ali is up in points, the opponent throws an illegal punch. With that strike is the opponent now winning? No. He is still losing. Further lets say he lands a couple of jabs, is he winning because he got a point? No, he's far from winning. Further lets say he manages to get Ali to change up, change behavior adapt, is he winning? Again no not till he has more points or knocks him out.
      - EliRivers 12y ago
        Has there been a movement which has won in substance through terrorism? The republican terrorists in Northern Ireland didn't get everything they wanted, but they certainly ended up with more political power than they had when they started.
        mc32 12y ago
        I'll give you that --but you must admit it worked because they had a legitimate political arm. It wasn't because they terrorized Londoners. ETA as well they have learned that terrorism is counter productive and seem to have gone legit pursuing political avenues.
        EliRivers 12y ago
        I admit that it worked because they had a legitimate political arm as well as blowing things up. The legitimate political arm gave the UK government someone to negotiate with without having to outright obviously negotiate with terrorists. They did negotiate with terrorists, some of whom went on to hold elected office, but were only able to do so because there was a legitimate political arm.
markdown 12y ago
This Norwegian Prime Minister dude doesn't know what he's talking about. That was a mass murder incident, not terrorism. White people can't be terrorists.
- sondr3 12y ago
  What? Both his attacks are recognized as terrorist attacks in Norway.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- malka 12y ago
  I really hope that this comment is sarcastic. But due to Poe's law, I'll never know...
  - vinceguidry 12y ago
    It was sarcasm. It's very subtle but it's easier to figure out if you sound the comment out aloud. The "white people can't be terrorists" is the giveaway. His comment didn't work because it shoehorns an American political narrative onto Europe. But if he'd said something like, "white people can't be looters" in the context of, say, the Hurricane Katrina disaster, it would have been much clearer.
    - markdown 12y ago
      I regret posting it. A comment better suited for Reddit. > an American political narrative Reflected two days ago by a former CIA deputy director who called the French event the worst attack in that part of the world since 2005. Norway didn't count apparently. https://encrypted.google.com/webhp#q=cia%20worst%20terror%20attack%20since%202005 https://encrypted.google.com/webhp#q=cia%20worst%20terror%20...
lbenes 12y ago
> "open, tolerant and inclusive society" This is what we need, not the usual approach of using tragic events to justify new surveillance, law enforcement powers, or military action. The only response that could offer a real long term solution is outreach and education, because fundamentalisms only flourishes in an environment of ignorance and poverty. One of the few downsides of the technological revolution that we live in, is that everyday it lowers the barrier of entry develop nuclear or biological weapons. If we don't do something about extremest, they will be the cause of our civilization's demise. In the past decade, we have spent $3 trillion fighting wars in the Middle East.[1] That money and our presence there hasn't worked, it's only created a new generation that hate Western values. I just watched on news footage of hangars and barracks being bulldozed in Afghanistan.[2] What I saw was potential schools and homes being bulldozed. Imaging what could have been accomplished after 911 with $3 trillion invested instead in Education, Science, and Technology. Imagine the good over $800 million each day for a decade could do. Let's stop dropping bombs and start teaching. That's the only way we're going to end this vicious cycle before it's too late for all of us. [1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/03/AR2010090302200.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09... [2] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/afghanistan-war-60-minutes-lara-logan/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/afghanistan-war-60-minutes-lara-...
- maroonblazer 12y ago
  >"because fundamentalisms only flourishes in an environment of ignorance and poverty." Do you mean ignorance as in poorly-educated? Nearly all the 19 hijackers of 911 were quite well-educated. Or are you referring to ignorance rooted in a belief in myth and superstition as manifested in religion? How kindly do you think people are going to take to being told, if even implicitly - by "infidels" no less - that they're belief system has rendered them ignorant? For that matter non-muslims playing any role in the arab world is considered an abomination by fundamentalists. I agree that change needs to happen but am not convinced it can come from the West. It needs to come from within Islam and the Muslim community. They need their own Reformation.
  - notsony 12y ago

PythonicAlpha 12y ago

That is the only valid response to such an attack. With different responses, the terrorists win.

mc32 12y ago
I hear people use this phrase quite a lot. (people on the right and left) but I disagree with those who say that terrorists --people who commit any kind of terror are out to 'win' anything. Typically terrorists just want to terrorize, not win, particularly. For example, you might have an insurgent group somewhere or other, let's say Caucasus, those movements will have real boots on the ground doing fighting to win 'ground' and they will also have a terrorist operations. The terror operations are not there to win anything --just to instill terror. They are there for nothing else than instill terror. Not shut down buildings, not keep people from going to work or going to market --afterall people will _have_ to continue going to market. That's what I think. In sports this would be like doing something to get a penalty. Doing something to injure an opponent will not get you the victory. Only points (goals, whatever) will provide the win. A boxer does not win by biting off the opponent's ear, they win by earning more points.
- brazzy 12y ago
  Terrorists do absolutely NOT "just want to terrorize". They have goals. If they achieve their goals through the acts of terror, directly or indirectly, they win.
  - mc32 12y ago
    Has there been a movement which has won in substance through terrorism? Movements don't win through terrorism. The movements (or however you want to characterize it) have to actually come out and put up a fight if they want to win. Terrorism tends to have the opposite effect --it alienates people from a cause they might actually see some commonality with. Using the boxing analogy, someone is fighting Muhammad Ali, Ali is up in points, the opponent throws an illegal punch. With that strike is the opponent now winning? No. He is still losing. Further lets say he lands a couple of jabs, is he winning because he got a point? No, he's far from winning. Further lets say he manages to get Ali to change up, change behavior adapt, is he winning? Again no not till he has more points or knocks him out.
    - EliRivers 12y ago
      Has there been a movement which has won in substance through terrorism? The republican terrorists in Northern Ireland didn't get everything they wanted, but they certainly ended up with more political power than they had when they started.
      - mc32 12y ago
        I'll give you that --but you must admit it worked because they had a legitimate political arm. It wasn't because they terrorized Londoners. ETA as well they have learned that terrorism is counter productive and seem to have gone legit pursuing political avenues.
        EliRivers 12y ago
        I admit that it worked because they had a legitimate political arm as well as blowing things up. The legitimate political arm gave the UK government someone to negotiate with without having to outright obviously negotiate with terrorists. They did negotiate with terrorists, some of whom went on to hold elected office, but were only able to do so because there was a legitimate political arm.

markdown 12y ago

This Norwegian Prime Minister dude doesn't know what he's talking about. That was a mass murder incident, not terrorism. White people can't be terrorists.

sondr3 12y ago
What? Both his attacks are recognized as terrorist attacks in Norway.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
malka 12y ago
I really hope that this comment is sarcastic. But due to Poe's law, I'll never know...
- vinceguidry 12y ago
  It was sarcasm. It's very subtle but it's easier to figure out if you sound the comment out aloud. The "white people can't be terrorists" is the giveaway. His comment didn't work because it shoehorns an American political narrative onto Europe. But if he'd said something like, "white people can't be looters" in the context of, say, the Hurricane Katrina disaster, it would have been much clearer.
  - markdown 12y ago
    I regret posting it. A comment better suited for Reddit. > an American political narrative Reflected two days ago by a former CIA deputy director who called the French event the worst attack in that part of the world since 2005. Norway didn't count apparently. https://encrypted.google.com/webhp#q=cia%20worst%20terror%20attack%20since%202005 https://encrypted.google.com/webhp#q=cia%20worst%20terror%20...

lbenes 12y ago

> "open, tolerant and inclusive society" This is what we need, not the usual approach of using tragic events to justify new surveillance, law enforcement powers, or military action. The only response that could offer a real long term solution is outreach and education, because fundamentalisms only flourishes in an environment of ignorance and poverty. One of the few downsides of the technological revolution that we live in, is that everyday it lowers the barrier of entry develop nuclear or biological weapons. If we don't do something about extremest, they will be the cause of our civilization's demise. In the past decade, we have spent $3 trillion fighting wars in the Middle East.[1] That money and our presence there hasn't worked, it's only created a new generation that hate Western values. I just watched on news footage of hangars and barracks being bulldozed in Afghanistan.[2] What I saw was potential schools and homes being bulldozed. Imaging what could have been accomplished after 911 with $3 trillion invested instead in Education, Science, and Technology. Imagine the good over $800 million each day for a decade could do. Let's stop dropping bombs and start teaching. That's the only way we're going to end this vicious cycle before it's too late for all of us. [1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/03/AR2010090302200.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09... [2] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/afghanistan-war-60-minutes-lara-logan/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/afghanistan-war-60-minutes-lara-...

maroonblazer 12y ago
>"because fundamentalisms only flourishes in an environment of ignorance and poverty." Do you mean ignorance as in poorly-educated? Nearly all the 19 hijackers of 911 were quite well-educated. Or are you referring to ignorance rooted in a belief in myth and superstition as manifested in religion? How kindly do you think people are going to take to being told, if even implicitly - by "infidels" no less - that they're belief system has rendered them ignorant? For that matter non-muslims playing any role in the arab world is considered an abomination by fundamentalists. I agree that change needs to happen but am not convinced it can come from the West. It needs to come from within Islam and the Muslim community. They need their own Reformation.
- notsony 12y ago